Search

water fluoridation

I want to ask you what your or "skeptics" views on water fluridation are. (I only got to a 2 or 3 meetups in last 1-2 years due to situation/condition so asking on here.)

From my general impressions of the few meetups I've been to, etc I'm guessing you will mostly be pro-fluoridation (and cite examples of seeming reduction of tooth decay in fluoridated areas)?

I am suffering bad health issues which i am pretty sure are somewhat due to fluoridated water. The general evidence seems to me strong that it is harmful to our health and is not beneficial to teeth. However the health authorities through government force it on us/me and they claim scientific/professional authority that it is beneficial for teeth [and not harmful] and that they carefully monitor, review and research.

(Don't need/want to be told about reverse osmosis filters as often i get told in reply. I know but aren't able to due to problems like finding out when i tried to get a filter that i'd have to get all the plumbing redone, etc.)

If any of you agree that evidence supports that fluoridation should not be forced because of apparent harms/risks and lack of benefit, do any of you think there should be some urgent action?

Sorry to hear you are still having health problems, how do you know these are related to Flouride?

As far as I can see there is no significant risk to public health from Fluoridation of water supplies. Where are you getting the evidence that suggests strongly to you that it is harmful? Can you provide some links to this evidence?

This is an extract from the link I have provided below from the Public Health Association.

"The risks of adverse health outcomes from ingestion of fluoridated drinking water are
considered negligible to nil. Recent reports by the Public Health Commission, National
Health Medical Research Council of Australia and World Health Organization address
many of the concerns raised regarding cancer, bones and fractures. In the review of
published literature and other reports on fluoride research, it is noticeable that many of the
articles that raise fears about water fluoridation lack substance or repeat previous
statements already shown to be without scientific validity. For example, many studies are
in vitro and cannot, therefore, be extrapolated to public health effects on the human
population. If the results were applicable to humans, there would be solid epidemiological
evidence of increased rates of adverse health effects in fluoridated areas when compared
with non-fluoridated areas. This is not the case, as there is no such epidemiological
evidence."http://www.pha.org.nz/policies/phapolicyfluoridation.pdf

Well I don't know that all/some of my health problems are only due to fluoridated water (after all i have been abused, gone through multiple foster placements, poisoned half a dozen times (vaccination, mercury fillings, heavy metals from corrosive water in fittings, tinned canned food, bpa, fluoride, jeans dye), currently have a poor diet and lack of exercise and sunlight, stress, noisy neighbours, single/no family, etc) but I am very sure (tho can't absolutely prove it) that the fluoridation/treatment is at least partly contributing to some problems, and that it is definately the main blame of some others (like dehyrdated mouth) because of experience/experiments when drinking/eating more/less water, and because others also sufffering similar things which seem commonly due to fluoridation (eg balding, etc), and because the things i/they suffering are things fluoride is reckoned by various sources to cause, and by dedcution and elimination of other ill-health causes.

& how can they prove my health isn't being partly efected by the fluoride/water?

Besides shouldn't I have the right to find out by being allowed/able to have non-fluoridated water? (I mean them stoping fluoridating or supplying me with non-fluoridated water since I'm not able to avoid it myself.)

Whats your explanation for things like mass balding if you don't see fluoride is risk to health. (I don't believe mass balding is (just) genetic, the evidence surely discounts it.)

Apart from my own experience evidence as mentioned above, i have looked up about fluoride in science books, and also found various theses in online searches but will have to search them out again to post links, though anyone can type in "fluoride"/"fluoridation" and "ms"/"cancer"/"thyroid"/"pineal gland"/etc, and the fannz (fluoride action network) site &/or their council submission has some of the studies evidence.
All medication has side-effects. (At a sceptics meeting someone said "all medicine is poison"!)
Also its not a question of my sources/evidence, Europe (except British Isles) has banned it.

What are the "health" organisations sources & evidences? Is their research objective and not selective, and are they researching possible effects on people like me (or are they just saying there isn't any (because they won't do any) and that objectors don't have any that they accept)?
Their own info lacks substance as they accuse the other side of.
It just seems authoritative because they are "health" professionals and claim to have "scientific" research, and that others suposedly have been shown lack "scientific validity/substance".

I was very fortunate with my upbringing in that it was stable and mostly safe. I wonder if that difference accounts for our quite different perspectives on this.

The link you have supplied has many misunderstandings about chemicals (is this something you have written?).

You (?) claim that Flouride is "labeled (and registered) as “poison”/”toxic”/”hazchem” This may be correct at the concentrations it has to be shipped at. At effective and safe ingestion levels of .7-1.0 ppm you would be shipping mostly water.

You claim “is more toxic than lead” (& “the Government allows 20 times as much fluoride as lead in drinking water” Lead is not eliminated easily out of the body whereas around half of the fluoride you ingest leaves you quickly in your urine. This is why the allowance for Flouride is so much higher.

Many more similar examples can be found.

And then it descends into a level of incoherency that I frankly cannot be bothered trying to comb out. Maybe it made sense when it was written.

It then Finishes with statements like this "This article is not complete without saying that God/Jesus is the only answer/panacea to world’s problems." and "It was/is prophesied that in last days/end times there will be ‘pharmacia’ which = drugs and/or “witchcraft” but also may also include fluoride as forced medication/drugging and mercury fillings and medication."

I don't know what to say, if that is your opinion then I doubt we have much to say to each other. Supernatural claims close off the possibility of rational discourse as far as I am concerned.

The important thing to know is that Rob Edwards upbringing was stable and mostly safe, which accounts for a trust in authority in general. That translates as an inablity to pose questions outside the parameters of what is generally known. Lack of imagination.Note: Einstein quoted that imagination is more important than knowledge.

Welcome back Smartgirl, still failing to live up to your nom de guerre I see.

You, quite by accident I'm sure, get it right in the first sentence in that my more stable early life by comparison with the OP probably does not make me as likely to adopt a position of distrust as default.